US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Oldstyle]

Which of your "8 very duable solutions" would you want to discuss. First, me boy, you need to express why you think each is a solution. I saw none. But I am more than willing to discuss them, one or two at a time, but I am at this point not willing to believe that you have an argument for any of them.
Next, me boy, though I have lots of economics background, and plenty of years looking at the subjects involved in our economic condition, I do not consider myself an expert. First thing I look for is economic education, which you have shown nothing of. There are those on this site that have PhD's, Masters Degrees, and years of work experience with the subject that provide them with a level of base expertise that you have not shown. Not in the slightest.
Making statements like you do of "8 solutions" without explaining why you think they are solutions or providing links that provide proof of your assertions simply make you look, to me and obviously to others reading your posts, that you have nothing but what has become known as "shtick". It is really hard to take you seriously, me boy. You appear to be a major lightweight trying to make people think you are a person of substance, or maybe you are simply mentally ill.
Relative to your ignorant argument about qe, I would suggest, me boy, that you do some looking at the subject. Find the many articles about the subject by impartial sources, and show me one that supports your assertions. And stop with the silly trading card example. Makes you look like you are still in third grade. me boy.
You see, me boy, the impartial experts on the subject do not believe that qe efforts had any real effect on inflation. And without affecting inflation, there is no effect on the value of money. Simple, me boy. Which makes me think you are a congenital idiot.
Perhaps you could start with the statement you made about the Fed being foreign owned, me boy. Without proof (which. of course, you did not provide) it makes you look, again, like a reactionary alarmist. And an idiot.

Those qe efforts made during the past two presidents terms by the fed (look it up, dipshit) were way too small to have the effects you so breathlessly suggest. Then, to educate yourself further, try educating yourself on the effect of monetary tools on demand based recessions. You will find that, in fact, there is a term used in economics called (pushing on a string) that explains why all economic experts expected very little effect from qe efforts made during either presidential term. Both the fed and presidential economic teams found the results about what they expected. Which was minimal. And is why there was no effect on inflation or the value of money at all, me boy. Though they did provide fuel for alarmists like yourself.
Here, me boy, is a quote for you, relative to your naive statement that the fed is foreign controlled:

"The Fed is an American institution. About the myth: "This is simply wrong," says Charles Calomiris, Henry Kaufman professor of financial institutions at Columbia University.

"What we know is, at least on the surface, the Federal Reserve is run by a combination of the Federal Reserve board and the 12 Federal Reserve banks, who together form the governance of the system," says Calomiris, who also is a visiting scholar at the International Monetary Fund.

The Board of Governors is comprised of Americans. "Some conspiracy-theory types sometimes argue that vague international organizations secretly control the Fed and other central banks. Yet they provide no evidence for that, which of course they can't if it is really secret!" says Steve Horwitz, an economics professor at St. Lawrence University in Canton, N.Y."
5 Myths Debunked About The Federal Reserve | Bankrate.com

The above, me boy, is a quote from an impartial source discussing myths of alarmists like yourself about the fed. Try to learn, me boy. You really need to educate yourself on fact rather than drivel.

One of the board's great idiots is holding forth on the need to educate yourself? Too funny...

 

[Oldstyle]

You're the moron who when I asked you to tell me what economic school you based your contentions on...thought I was referring to an actual brick and mortar university!

 

[Rshermr]

What do we need to do?

Well, for starters...we need to gradually raise interest rates to something sane. I say that for two reasons. First of all it will give us a real idea of how strong the economy really is...but more importantly...if we do have another financial crisis we'll have that tool (lowering interest rates) to combat it. As it stands right now...if we have another recession...our "quiver" of economic arrows to address that is basically empty. All we've done for the past eight years is artificially prop up the stock market which allowed wealthy people who had credit to invest with to make a fortune. You want to know why there is such "inequality" between the wealthy and the Lower Class? It's because of things like what the Fed has done with interest rates. Poor people didn't gain from the stock market rebound...wealthy people sure as heck did!

Ummm... what "quivers" did Obama have when he came into office in 2009?

Every President works with the same economic "tools", Faun...some simply understand how to use them better than others. Reagan for instance. He inherited Stagflation from Jimmy Carter...bit the bullet and did the politically unpopular thing by tightening up the money supply...which caused unemployment to rise and Reagan's approval ratings to plummet. Then when inflation was lessened...he cut taxes, the economy started to boom and unemployment went down. Now contrast that with what Barack Obama has done for the past seven plus years. He's kept interest rates at almost zero. Why? Because he knows that the stock market "recovery" has been a bubble driven almost exclusively by cheap money. He CAN'T raise interest rates because it would expose how shaky the economic recovery has been under his stewardship.

Obama hasn't pushed for a raise in interest rates. Why? Because he understands that the economy really isn't strong and that even proposing a raise in interest rates sends the Dow plummeting. He won't do the hard things that Reagan did because Barry doesn't DO hard. He does EASY. Like lowering interest rates for seven plus years.

Why isn't the economy good?

Because economic growth that's grinding along at a little above 2% year after year ISN'T good?

Compare what the economy was doing by this time in Reagan's second term to what it is doing at this time in Obama's.

it is not simply growth rate. If it was, we would say the Carter years were much better, with growth rates of 9% to over 14%. Reagan had early rates of over 9.5%.and later rates between 2% and 5% So, based on your reasoning, carter had a much better economy. But there are, of course, other factors. If you compare carter or reagan to obama, you have to consider those other factors. Like, neither of the first two had unemployment rates at the start of their terms anything like obama did, when loosing over 500,000 jobs per month as a result of the great republican recession of 2008. And the inflation rate was controlled during his term to about 2%. So, it is obvious that those were different times, and you have to ask yourself if you would prefer high gnp growth rates coupled with extreme high inflation, or if you would rather have low inflation and typical gnp growth af about 2.5%. Makes the analysis less simple, of course, but more factual.
Truth is, if you want a good economy, look at the Clinton years. Though I am not a great fan of his overall policies, the results were the best this century.

 

[Oldstyle]

Well, for starters...we need to gradually raise interest rates to something sane. I say that for two reasons. First of all it will give us a real idea of how strong the economy really is...but more importantly...if we do have another financial crisis we'll have that tool (lowering interest rates) to combat it. As it stands right now...if we have another recession...our "quiver" of economic arrows to address that is basically empty. All we've done for the past eight years is artificially prop up the stock market which allowed wealthy people who had credit to invest with to make a fortune. You want to know why there is such "inequality" between the wealthy and the Lower Class? It's because of things like what the Fed has done with interest rates. Poor people didn't gain from the stock market rebound...wealthy people sure as heck did!

Ummm... what "quivers" did Obama have when he came into office in 2009?

Every President works with the same economic "tools", Faun...some simply understand how to use them better than others. Reagan for instance. He inherited Stagflation from Jimmy Carter...bit the bullet and did the politically unpopular thing by tightening up the money supply...which caused unemployment to rise and Reagan's approval ratings to plummet. Then when inflation was lessened...he cut taxes, the economy started to boom and unemployment went down. Now contrast that with what Barack Obama has done for the past seven plus years. He's kept interest rates at almost zero. Why? Because he knows that the stock market "recovery" has been a bubble driven almost exclusively by cheap money. He CAN'T raise interest rates because it would expose how shaky the economic recovery has been under his stewardship.

Obama hasn't pushed for a raise in interest rates. Why? Because he understands that the economy really isn't strong and that even proposing a raise in interest rates sends the Dow plummeting. He won't do the hard things that Reagan did because Barry doesn't DO hard. He does EASY. Like lowering interest rates for seven plus years.

Why isn't the economy good?

Because economic growth that's grinding along at a little above 2% year after year ISN'T good?

Compare what the economy was doing by this time in Reagan's second term to what it is doing at this time in Obama's.

it is not simply growth rate. If it was, we would say the Carter years were much better, with growth rates of 9% to over 14%. Reagan had early rates of over 9.5%.and later rates between 2% and 5% So, based on your reasoning, carter had a much better economy. But there are, of course, other factors. If you compare carter or reagan to obama, you have to consider those other factors. Like, neither of the first two had unemployment rates at the start of their terms anything like obama did, when loosing over 500,000 jobs per month as a result of the great republican recession of 2008. And the inflation rate was controlled during his term to about 2%. So, it is obvious that those were different times, and you have to ask yourself if you would prefer high gnp growth rates coupled with extreme high inflation, or if you would rather have low inflation and typical gnp growth af about 2.5%. Makes the analysis less simple, of course, but more factual.
Truth is, if you want a good economy, look at the Clinton years. Though I am not a great fan of his overall policies, the results were the best this century.

The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom. I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration. Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.

 

[Rshermr]

The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom. I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration. Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.[/QUOTE]

Your economic analysis is short on fact, and heavy on agenda, as usual. Here is a quote from FactCheck.org, which you probably do not like because it always seeks truth. Not your favorite concept.

"I was wondering if FactCheck can provide me with answers to the question, "To what extent were Bill Clinton’s policies responsible for economic growth in the 1990s?"

FULL ANSWER

What we can say with certainty is that Clinton served as president during the last eight years of a decade-long economic expansion that stands as the longest boom in U.S. history. Clinton saw a gain of nearly 21 million jobs during his tenure (January 1993 – January 2001).
Certainly Clinton deserves some credit for that remarkable economic growth, but just as certainly he can’t claim all the credit. How much he deserves is a matter of opinion that will probably be debated for years to come. By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in.
Clinton’s major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the "largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.
Clinton can also be given credit for reappointing Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve, where the economist was widely credited with a masterly performance in handling interest rates. This was an unusual move for a Democratic president, as Greenspan is a libertarian Republican who had been a close economic adviser to Republican Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Greenspan and Clinton worked closely, and in 2007 Greenspan praised Clinton’s handling of the federal deficit and his support for liberalized trade, calling him "the best Republican president we’ve had in a while."
But many other factors, having little or nothing to do with government, also were at work during the Clinton years. Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive. Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the world’s rapidly growing trade.
Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clinton’s presidency, partly because of squabbling and cheating among the OPEC oil-producing nations. As late as 1999 crude oil was selling for less than $10 per barrel and gasoline hit a low of 95 cents per gallon at the pump, a price that included the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax increase that Clinton had supported and Republicans had denounced.
– Brooks Jackson"
So again, there is the truth as opposed to the reasons proposed by the far right wing bat shit crazy web sites you peruse.
Relative to the rest of your post, nice to see how impartial, non judgmental, and non agenda driven you are.
As soon as you run out of economic argument, which is normally at the time you start your posts, you begin your personal attacks. Try sticking to economics, if you are capable.

 

[sealybobo]

Ummm... what "quivers" did Obama have when he came into office in 2009?

Every President works with the same economic "tools", Faun...some simply understand how to use them better than others. Reagan for instance. He inherited Stagflation from Jimmy Carter...bit the bullet and did the politically unpopular thing by tightening up the money supply...which caused unemployment to rise and Reagan's approval ratings to plummet. Then when inflation was lessened...he cut taxes, the economy started to boom and unemployment went down. Now contrast that with what Barack Obama has done for the past seven plus years. He's kept interest rates at almost zero. Why? Because he knows that the stock market "recovery" has been a bubble driven almost exclusively by cheap money. He CAN'T raise interest rates because it would expose how shaky the economic recovery has been under his stewardship.

Obama hasn't pushed for a raise in interest rates. Why? Because he understands that the economy really isn't strong and that even proposing a raise in interest rates sends the Dow plummeting. He won't do the hard things that Reagan did because Barry doesn't DO hard. He does EASY. Like lowering interest rates for seven plus years.

Why isn't the economy good?

Because economic growth that's grinding along at a little above 2% year after year ISN'T good?

Compare what the economy was doing by this time in Reagan's second term to what it is doing at this time in Obama's.

it is not simply growth rate. If it was, we would say the Carter years were much better, with growth rates of 9% to over 14%. Reagan had early rates of over 9.5%.and later rates between 2% and 5% So, based on your reasoning, carter had a much better economy. But there are, of course, other factors. If you compare carter or reagan to obama, you have to consider those other factors. Like, neither of the first two had unemployment rates at the start of their terms anything like obama did, when loosing over 500,000 jobs per month as a result of the great republican recession of 2008. And the inflation rate was controlled during his term to about 2%. So, it is obvious that those were different times, and you have to ask yourself if you would prefer high gnp growth rates coupled with extreme high inflation, or if you would rather have low inflation and typical gnp growth af about 2.5%. Makes the analysis less simple, of course, but more factual.
Truth is, if you want a good economy, look at the Clinton years. Though I am not a great fan of his overall policies, the results were the best this century.

The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom. I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration. Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.

More important is that a democratic president won't return us to bushanomics.

 

[Oldstyle]

Every President works with the same economic "tools", Faun...some simply understand how to use them better than others. Reagan for instance. He inherited Stagflation from Jimmy Carter...bit the bullet and did the politically unpopular thing by tightening up the money supply...which caused unemployment to rise and Reagan's approval ratings to plummet. Then when inflation was lessened...he cut taxes, the economy started to boom and unemployment went down. Now contrast that with what Barack Obama has done for the past seven plus years. He's kept interest rates at almost zero. Why? Because he knows that the stock market "recovery" has been a bubble driven almost exclusively by cheap money. He CAN'T raise interest rates because it would expose how shaky the economic recovery has been under his stewardship.

Obama hasn't pushed for a raise in interest rates. Why? Because he understands that the economy really isn't strong and that even proposing a raise in interest rates sends the Dow plummeting. He won't do the hard things that Reagan did because Barry doesn't DO hard. He does EASY. Like lowering interest rates for seven plus years.

Why isn't the economy good?

Because economic growth that's grinding along at a little above 2% year after year ISN'T good?

Compare what the economy was doing by this time in Reagan's second term to what it is doing at this time in Obama's.

it is not simply growth rate. If it was, we would say the Carter years were much better, with growth rates of 9% to over 14%. Reagan had early rates of over 9.5%.and later rates between 2% and 5% So, based on your reasoning, carter had a much better economy. But there are, of course, other factors. If you compare carter or reagan to obama, you have to consider those other factors. Like, neither of the first two had unemployment rates at the start of their terms anything like obama did, when loosing over 500,000 jobs per month as a result of the great republican recession of 2008. And the inflation rate was controlled during his term to about 2%. So, it is obvious that those were different times, and you have to ask yourself if you would prefer high gnp growth rates coupled with extreme high inflation, or if you would rather have low inflation and typical gnp growth af about 2.5%. Makes the analysis less simple, of course, but more factual.
Truth is, if you want a good economy, look at the Clinton years. Though I am not a great fan of his overall policies, the results were the best this century.

The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom. I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration. Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.

More important is that a democratic president won't return us to bushanomics.

Specifically...what do you think Hillary Clinton is going to do with the economy? Did I miss her plans to create jobs and create growth? You know what's going to be amusing, Sealy? Listening to the excuses that you on the left are going to have to come up with to explain why the economy under Hillary doesn't boom the way it did under Slick Willie!

 

[Oldstyle]

The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom. I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration. Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.

Your economic analysis is short on fact, and heavy on agenda, as usual. Here is a quote from FactCheck.org, which you probably do not like because it always seeks truth. Not your favorite concept.

"I was wondering if FactCheck can provide me with answers to the question, "To what extent were Bill Clinton’s policies responsible for economic growth in the 1990s?"

FULL ANSWER

What we can say with certainty is that Clinton served as president during the last eight years of a decade-long economic expansion that stands as the longest boom in U.S. history. Clinton saw a gain of nearly 21 million jobs during his tenure (January 1993 – January 2001).
Certainly Clinton deserves some credit for that remarkable economic growth, but just as certainly he can’t claim all the credit. How much he deserves is a matter of opinion that will probably be debated for years to come. By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in.
Clinton’s major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the "largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.
Clinton can also be given credit for reappointing Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve, where the economist was widely credited with a masterly performance in handling interest rates. This was an unusual move for a Democratic president, as Greenspan is a libertarian Republican who had been a close economic adviser to Republican Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Greenspan and Clinton worked closely, and in 2007 Greenspan praised Clinton’s handling of the federal deficit and his support for liberalized trade, calling him "the best Republican president we’ve had in a while."
But many other factors, having little or nothing to do with government, also were at work during the Clinton years. Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive. Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the world’s rapidly growing trade.
Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clinton’s presidency, partly because of squabbling and cheating among the OPEC oil-producing nations. As late as 1999 crude oil was selling for less than $10 per barrel and gasoline hit a low of 95 cents per gallon at the pump, a price that included the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax increase that Clinton had supported and Republicans had denounced.
– Brooks Jackson"
So again, there is the truth as opposed to the reasons proposed by the far right wing bat shit crazy web sites you peruse.
Relative to the rest of your post, nice to see how impartial, non judgmental, and non agenda driven you are.
As soon as you run out of economic argument, which is normally at the time you start your posts, you begin your personal attacks. Try sticking to economics, if you are capable.
[/QUOTE]

The article you cite points out that Clinton had "good luck" to be in office during the Dot Com Boom...squabbling among OPEC producers that depressed oil prices...and with no major wars to disrupt trade. It also points out that the economy slipped into recession only weeks after George W. Bush was sworn into office which illustrates that Clinton minus the Dot Com Boom wasn't able to sustain economic growth. Thank you for proving my point!

 

[sealybobo]

Why isn't the economy good?

Because economic growth that's grinding along at a little above 2% year after year ISN'T good?

Compare what the economy was doing by this time in Reagan's second term to what it is doing at this time in Obama's.

it is not simply growth rate. If it was, we would say the Carter years were much better, with growth rates of 9% to over 14%. Reagan had early rates of over 9.5%.and later rates between 2% and 5% So, based on your reasoning, carter had a much better economy. But there are, of course, other factors. If you compare carter or reagan to obama, you have to consider those other factors. Like, neither of the first two had unemployment rates at the start of their terms anything like obama did, when loosing over 500,000 jobs per month as a result of the great republican recession of 2008. And the inflation rate was controlled during his term to about 2%. So, it is obvious that those were different times, and you have to ask yourself if you would prefer high gnp growth rates coupled with extreme high inflation, or if you would rather have low inflation and typical gnp growth af about 2.5%. Makes the analysis less simple, of course, but more factual.
Truth is, if you want a good economy, look at the Clinton years. Though I am not a great fan of his overall policies, the results were the best this century.

The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom. I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration. Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.

More important is that a democratic president won't return us to bushanomics.

Specifically...what do you think Hillary Clinton is going to do with the economy? Did I miss her plans to create jobs and create growth? You know what's going to be amusing, Sealy? Listening to the excuses that you on the left are going to have to come up with to explain why the economy under Hillary doesn't boom the way it did under Slick Willie!

Hopefully we won't be talking about the trump recession and I don't get to say I told you so. And just like Obama's economy no matter how good her economy is you won't admit it.

And no matter how bad Bush's economy was you never admitted it. But the fact no Republican is running for president this year, that's all I need to know that you guys finally admit bush owned the great recession. If not you guys would have ran jeb. You know the bush name is mud now, right? Took you guys long enough to admit it

 

[sealybobo]

The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom. I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration. Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.

Your economic analysis is short on fact, and heavy on agenda, as usual. Here is a quote from FactCheck.org, which you probably do not like because it always seeks truth. Not your favorite concept.

"I was wondering if FactCheck can provide me with answers to the question, "To what extent were Bill Clinton’s policies responsible for economic growth in the 1990s?"

FULL ANSWER

What we can say with certainty is that Clinton served as president during the last eight years of a decade-long economic expansion that stands as the longest boom in U.S. history. Clinton saw a gain of nearly 21 million jobs during his tenure (January 1993 – January 2001).
Certainly Clinton deserves some credit for that remarkable economic growth, but just as certainly he can’t claim all the credit. How much he deserves is a matter of opinion that will probably be debated for years to come. By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in.
Clinton’s major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the "largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.
Clinton can also be given credit for reappointing Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve, where the economist was widely credited with a masterly performance in handling interest rates. This was an unusual move for a Democratic president, as Greenspan is a libertarian Republican who had been a close economic adviser to Republican Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Greenspan and Clinton worked closely, and in 2007 Greenspan praised Clinton’s handling of the federal deficit and his support for liberalized trade, calling him "the best Republican president we’ve had in a while."
But many other factors, having little or nothing to do with government, also were at work during the Clinton years. Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive. Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the world’s rapidly growing trade.
Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clinton’s presidency, partly because of squabbling and cheating among the OPEC oil-producing nations. As late as 1999 crude oil was selling for less than $10 per barrel and gasoline hit a low of 95 cents per gallon at the pump, a price that included the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax increase that Clinton had supported and Republicans had denounced.
– Brooks Jackson"
So again, there is the truth as opposed to the reasons proposed by the far right wing bat shit crazy web sites you peruse.
Relative to the rest of your post, nice to see how impartial, non judgmental, and non agenda driven you are.
As soon as you run out of economic argument, which is normally at the time you start your posts, you begin your personal attacks. Try sticking to economics, if you are capable.

The article you cite points out that Clinton had "good luck" to be in office during the Dot Com Boom...squabbling among OPEC producers that depressed oil prices...and with no major wars to disrupt trade. It also points out that the economy slipped into recession only weeks after George W. Bush was sworn into office which illustrates that Clinton minus the Dot Com Boom wasn't able to sustain economic growth. Thank you for proving my point![/QUOTE]
They never bitched about bills economic policies. All I remember was Monica Monica monica

 

[Rshermr]

The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom. I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration. Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.

Your economic analysis is short on fact, and heavy on agenda, as usual. Here is a quote from FactCheck.org, which you probably do not like because it always seeks truth. Not your favorite concept.

"I was wondering if FactCheck can provide me with answers to the question, "To what extent were Bill Clinton’s policies responsible for economic growth in the 1990s?"

FULL ANSWER

What we can say with certainty is that Clinton served as president during the last eight years of a decade-long economic expansion that stands as the longest boom in U.S. history. Clinton saw a gain of nearly 21 million jobs during his tenure (January 1993 – January 2001).
Certainly Clinton deserves some credit for that remarkable economic growth, but just as certainly he can’t claim all the credit. How much he deserves is a matter of opinion that will probably be debated for years to come. By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in.
Clinton’s major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the "largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.
Clinton can also be given credit for reappointing Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve, where the economist was widely credited with a masterly performance in handling interest rates. This was an unusual move for a Democratic president, as Greenspan is a libertarian Republican who had been a close economic adviser to Republican Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Greenspan and Clinton worked closely, and in 2007 Greenspan praised Clinton’s handling of the federal deficit and his support for liberalized trade, calling him "the best Republican president we’ve had in a while."
But many other factors, having little or nothing to do with government, also were at work during the Clinton years. Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive. Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the world’s rapidly growing trade.
Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clinton’s presidency, partly because of squabbling and cheating among the OPEC oil-producing nations. As late as 1999 crude oil was selling for less than $10 per barrel and gasoline hit a low of 95 cents per gallon at the pump, a price that included the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax increase that Clinton had supported and Republicans had denounced.
– Brooks Jackson"
So again, there is the truth as opposed to the reasons proposed by the far right wing bat shit crazy web sites you peruse.
Relative to the rest of your post, nice to see how impartial, non judgmental, and non agenda driven you are.
As soon as you run out of economic argument, which is normally at the time you start your posts, you begin your personal attacks. Try sticking to economics, if you are capable.

The article you cite points out that Clinton had "good luck" to be in office during the Dot Com Boom...squabbling among OPEC producers that depressed oil prices...and with no major wars to disrupt trade. It also points out that the economy slipped into recession only weeks after George W. Bush was sworn into office which illustrates that Clinton minus the Dot Com Boom wasn't able to sustain economic growth. Thank you for proving my point![/QUOTE]

 

[Dale Smith]

 

[Rshermr]

The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom. I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration. Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.

Your economic analysis is short on fact, and heavy on agenda, as usual. Here is a quote from FactCheck.org, which you probably do not like because it always seeks truth. Not your favorite concept.

"I was wondering if FactCheck can provide me with answers to the question, "To what extent were Bill Clinton’s policies responsible for economic growth in the 1990s?"

FULL ANSWER

What we can say with certainty is that Clinton served as president during the last eight years of a decade-long economic expansion that stands as the longest boom in U.S. history. Clinton saw a gain of nearly 21 million jobs during his tenure (January 1993 – January 2001).
Certainly Clinton deserves some credit for that remarkable economic growth, but just as certainly he can’t claim all the credit. How much he deserves is a matter of opinion that will probably be debated for years to come. By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in.
Clinton’s major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the "largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.
Clinton can also be given credit for reappointing Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve, where the economist was widely credited with a masterly performance in handling interest rates. This was an unusual move for a Democratic president, as Greenspan is a libertarian Republican who had been a close economic adviser to Republican Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Greenspan and Clinton worked closely, and in 2007 Greenspan praised Clinton’s handling of the federal deficit and his support for liberalized trade, calling him "the best Republican president we’ve had in a while."
But many other factors, having little or nothing to do with government, also were at work during the Clinton years. Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive. Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the world’s rapidly growing trade.
Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clinton’s presidency, partly because of squabbling and cheating among the OPEC oil-producing nations. As late as 1999 crude oil was selling for less than $10 per barrel and gasoline hit a low of 95 cents per gallon at the pump, a price that included the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax increase that Clinton had supported and Republicans had denounced.
– Brooks Jackson"
So again, there is the truth as opposed to the reasons proposed by the far right wing bat shit crazy web sites you peruse.
Relative to the rest of your post, nice to see how impartial, non judgmental, and non agenda driven you are.
As soon as you run out of economic argument, which is normally at the time you start your posts, you begin your personal attacks. Try sticking to economics, if you are capable.

The article you cite points out that Clinton had "good luck" to be in office during the Dot Com Boom...squabbling among OPEC producers that depressed oil prices...and with no major wars to disrupt trade. It also points out that the economy slipped into recession only weeks after George W. Bush was sworn into office which illustrates that Clinton minus the Dot Com Boom wasn't able to sustain economic growth. Thank you for proving my point![/QUOTE]

Maybe, me boy, as you are a con tool, you are unaware that luck is a component of any president's term. Check it out some day, and let me know if any president with an average or better economy ever had no good luck. Jesus, you make stupid statements, me boy.
Most rational folks talk about those things done outside of luck. Like tax policies, and stimulative spending. There was, by the way, no mention of the dot com issue in the FactCheck article. They did mention the spending on IT. That is a different issue entirely than the dot com bubble, which, me boy, was about speculation on stock. Different thing entirely. And overall, the stock market has little effect on the economy.
Nice try, but another case of trying dishonesty to prove a con agenda point.
Wars?? Perhaps you can show me a time when a presidents economy was hurt by war or war preparation. Perhaps you missed Reagan's spending spree on war and war preparation which was great for his economy.
So, me boy, the point is, no president since Ike had a surplus until Clinton. None. That is over 66 years since a repub president has had a surplus.
Now Reagan promised one, but he:
1. Had the highest unemployment rate in US history at 10.8% in late 1982.
2. Spent more than all the presidents in US history COMBINED.
3. Very nearly TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, with deficits every year of his term.
4. Spent like a drunken sailor, greatly increasing the size of the US Federal Government.

So, really, me boy, you need to understand the fact that conservatives do not balance federal budgets. Not in their dna.
Now what was the point that you though I proved?? Oh yeah, the dot com statement. Too bad you did not know what the dotcom boom was actually about.

 

[Oldstyle]

The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom. I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration. Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.

Your economic analysis is short on fact, and heavy on agenda, as usual. Here is a quote from FactCheck.org, which you probably do not like because it always seeks truth. Not your favorite concept.

"I was wondering if FactCheck can provide me with answers to the question, "To what extent were Bill Clinton’s policies responsible for economic growth in the 1990s?"

FULL ANSWER

What we can say with certainty is that Clinton served as president during the last eight years of a decade-long economic expansion that stands as the longest boom in U.S. history. Clinton saw a gain of nearly 21 million jobs during his tenure (January 1993 – January 2001).
Certainly Clinton deserves some credit for that remarkable economic growth, but just as certainly he can’t claim all the credit. How much he deserves is a matter of opinion that will probably be debated for years to come. By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in.
Clinton’s major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the "largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.
Clinton can also be given credit for reappointing Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve, where the economist was widely credited with a masterly performance in handling interest rates. This was an unusual move for a Democratic president, as Greenspan is a libertarian Republican who had been a close economic adviser to Republican Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Greenspan and Clinton worked closely, and in 2007 Greenspan praised Clinton’s handling of the federal deficit and his support for liberalized trade, calling him "the best Republican president we’ve had in a while."
But many other factors, having little or nothing to do with government, also were at work during the Clinton years. Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive. Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the world’s rapidly growing trade.
Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clinton’s presidency, partly because of squabbling and cheating among the OPEC oil-producing nations. As late as 1999 crude oil was selling for less than $10 per barrel and gasoline hit a low of 95 cents per gallon at the pump, a price that included the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax increase that Clinton had supported and Republicans had denounced.
– Brooks Jackson"
So again, there is the truth as opposed to the reasons proposed by the far right wing bat shit crazy web sites you peruse.
Relative to the rest of your post, nice to see how impartial, non judgmental, and non agenda driven you are.
As soon as you run out of economic argument, which is normally at the time you start your posts, you begin your personal attacks. Try sticking to economics, if you are capable.

The article you cite points out that Clinton had "good luck" to be in office during the Dot Com Boom...squabbling among OPEC producers that depressed oil prices...and with no major wars to disrupt trade. It also points out that the economy slipped into recession only weeks after George W. Bush was sworn into office which illustrates that Clinton minus the Dot Com Boom wasn't able to sustain economic growth. Thank you for proving my point!

They never bitched about bills economic policies. All I remember was Monica Monica monica[/QUOTE]

Bill Clinton got reined in by Newt Gingrich and the GOP's Contract With America, Sealy. Clinton had enough common sense to realize that the people had spoken at the polls and moved to the center. Barack Obama ignored the message the voters sent him.

 

[Oldstyle]

The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom. I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration. Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.

Your economic analysis is short on fact, and heavy on agenda, as usual. Here is a quote from FactCheck.org, which you probably do not like because it always seeks truth. Not your favorite concept.

"I was wondering if FactCheck can provide me with answers to the question, "To what extent were Bill Clinton’s policies responsible for economic growth in the 1990s?"

FULL ANSWER

What we can say with certainty is that Clinton served as president during the last eight years of a decade-long economic expansion that stands as the longest boom in U.S. history. Clinton saw a gain of nearly 21 million jobs during his tenure (January 1993 – January 2001).
Certainly Clinton deserves some credit for that remarkable economic growth, but just as certainly he can’t claim all the credit. How much he deserves is a matter of opinion that will probably be debated for years to come. By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in.
Clinton’s major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the "largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.
Clinton can also be given credit for reappointing Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve, where the economist was widely credited with a masterly performance in handling interest rates. This was an unusual move for a Democratic president, as Greenspan is a libertarian Republican who had been a close economic adviser to Republican Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Greenspan and Clinton worked closely, and in 2007 Greenspan praised Clinton’s handling of the federal deficit and his support for liberalized trade, calling him "the best Republican president we’ve had in a while."
But many other factors, having little or nothing to do with government, also were at work during the Clinton years. Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive. Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the world’s rapidly growing trade.
Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clinton’s presidency, partly because of squabbling and cheating among the OPEC oil-producing nations. As late as 1999 crude oil was selling for less than $10 per barrel and gasoline hit a low of 95 cents per gallon at the pump, a price that included the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax increase that Clinton had supported and Republicans had denounced.
– Brooks Jackson"
So again, there is the truth as opposed to the reasons proposed by the far right wing bat shit crazy web sites you peruse.
Relative to the rest of your post, nice to see how impartial, non judgmental, and non agenda driven you are.
As soon as you run out of economic argument, which is normally at the time you start your posts, you begin your personal attacks. Try sticking to economics, if you are capable.

The article you cite points out that Clinton had "good luck" to be in office during the Dot Com Boom...squabbling among OPEC producers that depressed oil prices...and with no major wars to disrupt trade. It also points out that the economy slipped into recession only weeks after George W. Bush was sworn into office which illustrates that Clinton minus the Dot Com Boom wasn't able to sustain economic growth. Thank you for proving my point!

Maybe, me boy, as you are a con tool, you are unaware that luck is a component of any president's term. Check it out some day, and let me know if any president with an average or better economy ever had no good luck. Jesus, you make stupid statements, me boy.
Most rational folks talk about those things done outside of luck. Like tax policies, and stimulative spending. There was, by the way, no mention of the dot com issue in the FactCheck article. They did mention the spending on IT. That is a different issue entirely than the dot com bubble, which, me boy, was about speculation on stock. Different thing entirely. And overall, the stock market has little effect on the economy.
Nice try, but another case of trying dishonesty to prove a con agenda point.
Wars?? Perhaps you can show me a time when a presidents economy was hurt by war or war preparation. Perhaps you missed Reagan's spending spree on war and war preparation which was great for his economy.
So, me boy, the point is, no president since Ike had a surplus until Clinton. None. That is over 66 years since a repub president has had a surplus.
Now Reagan promised one, but he:
1. Had the highest unemployment rate in US history at 10.8% in late 1982.
2. Spent more than all the presidents in US history COMBINED.
3. Very nearly TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, with deficits every year of his term.
4. Spent like a drunken sailor, greatly increasing the size of the US Federal Government.

So, really, me boy, you need to understand the fact that conservatives do not balance federal budgets. Not in their dna.
Now what was the point that you though I proved?? Oh yeah, the dot com statement. Too bad you did not know what the dotcom boom was actually about.[/QUOTE]

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound each and every time you do your "me boy" thing? What the heck is that?

Who has spent more...Ronald Reagan...or Barack Obama?

 

[edthecynic]

Bill Clinton got reined in by Newt Gingrich and the GOP's Contract With America,

More like Clinton reined the GOP Congress since only changing Clinton with Bush and the same GOP Congress replaced surpluses with deficits as far as the eye can see!

 

[Rshermr]

The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom. I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration. Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.

Your economic analysis is short on fact, and heavy on agenda, as usual. Here is a quote from FactCheck.org, which you probably do not like because it always seeks truth. Not your favorite concept.

"I was wondering if FactCheck can provide me with answers to the question, "To what extent were Bill Clinton’s policies responsible for economic growth in the 1990s?"

FULL ANSWER

What we can say with certainty is that Clinton served as president during the last eight years of a decade-long economic expansion that stands as the longest boom in U.S. history. Clinton saw a gain of nearly 21 million jobs during his tenure (January 1993 – January 2001).
Certainly Clinton deserves some credit for that remarkable economic growth, but just as certainly he can’t claim all the credit. How much he deserves is a matter of opinion that will probably be debated for years to come. By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in.
Clinton’s major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the "largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.
Clinton can also be given credit for reappointing Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve, where the economist was widely credited with a masterly performance in handling interest rates. This was an unusual move for a Democratic president, as Greenspan is a libertarian Republican who had been a close economic adviser to Republican Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Greenspan and Clinton worked closely, and in 2007 Greenspan praised Clinton’s handling of the federal deficit and his support for liberalized trade, calling him "the best Republican president we’ve had in a while."
But many other factors, having little or nothing to do with government, also were at work during the Clinton years. Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive. Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the world’s rapidly growing trade.
Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clinton’s presidency, partly because of squabbling and cheating among the OPEC oil-producing nations. As late as 1999 crude oil was selling for less than $10 per barrel and gasoline hit a low of 95 cents per gallon at the pump, a price that included the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax increase that Clinton had supported and Republicans had denounced.
– Brooks Jackson"
So again, there is the truth as opposed to the reasons proposed by the far right wing bat shit crazy web sites you peruse.
Relative to the rest of your post, nice to see how impartial, non judgmental, and non agenda driven you are.
As soon as you run out of economic argument, which is normally at the time you start your posts, you begin your personal attacks. Try sticking to economics, if you are capable.

The article you cite points out that Clinton had "good luck" to be in office during the Dot Com Boom...squabbling among OPEC producers that depressed oil prices...and with no major wars to disrupt trade. It also points out that the economy slipped into recession only weeks after George W. Bush was sworn into office which illustrates that Clinton minus the Dot Com Boom wasn't able to sustain economic growth. Thank you for proving my point!

Maybe, me boy, as you are a con tool, you are unaware that luck is a component of any president's term. Check it out some day, and let me know if any president with an average or better economy ever had no good luck. Jesus, you make stupid statements, me boy.
Most rational folks talk about those things done outside of luck. Like tax policies, and stimulative spending. There was, by the way, no mention of the dot com issue in the FactCheck article. They did mention the spending on IT. That is a different issue entirely than the dot com bubble, which, me boy, was about speculation on stock. Different thing entirely. And overall, the stock market has little effect on the economy.
Nice try, but another case of trying dishonesty to prove a con agenda point.
Wars?? Perhaps you can show me a time when a presidents economy was hurt by war or war preparation. Perhaps you missed Reagan's spending spree on war and war preparation which was great for his economy.
So, me boy, the point is, no president since Ike had a surplus until Clinton. None. That is over 66 years since a repub president has had a surplus.
Now Reagan promised one, but he:
1. Had the highest unemployment rate in US history at 10.8% in late 1982.
2. Spent more than all the presidents in US history COMBINED.
3. Very nearly TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, with deficits every year of his term.
4. Spent like a drunken sailor, greatly increasing the size of the US Federal Government.

So, really, me boy, you need to understand the fact that conservatives do not balance federal budgets. Not in their dna.
Now what was the point that you though I proved?? Oh yeah, the dot com statement. Too bad you did not know what the dotcom boom was actually about.

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound each and every time you do your "me boy" thing? What the heck is that?[/QUOTE]
Just a term of endearment.
I see you have hit the end of your ability to discus the economic subjects.

 

[Oldstyle]

Bill Clinton got reined in by Newt Gingrich and the GOP's Contract With America,

More like Clinton reined the GOP Congress since only changing Clinton with Bush and the same GOP Congress replaced surpluses with deficits as far as the eye can see!

The "surpluses" only occurred because of the Gingrich led Congress cutting spending...while the Dot Com Boom greatly increased revenues. At the end of the Clinton Presidency...the Dot Com Boom was OVER and so were the surpluses. Within weeks of Bush being sworn in we were officially in a recession.

 

[Oldstyle]

The good economy during the Clinton years was less about Bill Clinton's "policies" than it was about the Dot Com Boom. I'm always amused by those on the left that seem to believe that simply putting Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office will somehow magically recreate the good economy that we enjoyed during the first seven years of the Clinton Administration. Unless you think she's going to pull a Dot Com Boom out of her very large ass...then what we're going to get is the Clinton SLEAZE without the good economy.

Your economic analysis is short on fact, and heavy on agenda, as usual. Here is a quote from FactCheck.org, which you probably do not like because it always seeks truth. Not your favorite concept.

"I was wondering if FactCheck can provide me with answers to the question, "To what extent were Bill Clinton’s policies responsible for economic growth in the 1990s?"

FULL ANSWER

What we can say with certainty is that Clinton served as president during the last eight years of a decade-long economic expansion that stands as the longest boom in U.S. history. Clinton saw a gain of nearly 21 million jobs during his tenure (January 1993 – January 2001).
Certainly Clinton deserves some credit for that remarkable economic growth, but just as certainly he can’t claim all the credit. How much he deserves is a matter of opinion that will probably be debated for years to come. By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in.
Clinton’s major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the "largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.
Clinton can also be given credit for reappointing Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve, where the economist was widely credited with a masterly performance in handling interest rates. This was an unusual move for a Democratic president, as Greenspan is a libertarian Republican who had been a close economic adviser to Republican Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Greenspan and Clinton worked closely, and in 2007 Greenspan praised Clinton’s handling of the federal deficit and his support for liberalized trade, calling him "the best Republican president we’ve had in a while."
But many other factors, having little or nothing to do with government, also were at work during the Clinton years. Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive. Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the world’s rapidly growing trade.
Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clinton’s presidency, partly because of squabbling and cheating among the OPEC oil-producing nations. As late as 1999 crude oil was selling for less than $10 per barrel and gasoline hit a low of 95 cents per gallon at the pump, a price that included the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax increase that Clinton had supported and Republicans had denounced.
– Brooks Jackson"
So again, there is the truth as opposed to the reasons proposed by the far right wing bat shit crazy web sites you peruse.
Relative to the rest of your post, nice to see how impartial, non judgmental, and non agenda driven you are.
As soon as you run out of economic argument, which is normally at the time you start your posts, you begin your personal attacks. Try sticking to economics, if you are capable.

The article you cite points out that Clinton had "good luck" to be in office during the Dot Com Boom...squabbling among OPEC producers that depressed oil prices...and with no major wars to disrupt trade. It also points out that the economy slipped into recession only weeks after George W. Bush was sworn into office which illustrates that Clinton minus the Dot Com Boom wasn't able to sustain economic growth. Thank you for proving my point!

Maybe, me boy, as you are a con tool, you are unaware that luck is a component of any president's term. Check it out some day, and let me know if any president with an average or better economy ever had no good luck. Jesus, you make stupid statements, me boy.
Most rational folks talk about those things done outside of luck. Like tax policies, and stimulative spending. There was, by the way, no mention of the dot com issue in the FactCheck article. They did mention the spending on IT. That is a different issue entirely than the dot com bubble, which, me boy, was about speculation on stock. Different thing entirely. And overall, the stock market has little effect on the economy.
Nice try, but another case of trying dishonesty to prove a con agenda point.
Wars?? Perhaps you can show me a time when a presidents economy was hurt by war or war preparation. Perhaps you missed Reagan's spending spree on war and war preparation which was great for his economy.
So, me boy, the point is, no president since Ike had a surplus until Clinton. None. That is over 66 years since a repub president has had a surplus.
Now Reagan promised one, but he:
1. Had the highest unemployment rate in US history at 10.8% in late 1982.
2. Spent more than all the presidents in US history COMBINED.
3. Very nearly TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT, with deficits every year of his term.
4. Spent like a drunken sailor, greatly increasing the size of the US Federal Government.

So, really, me boy, you need to understand the fact that conservatives do not balance federal budgets. Not in their dna.
Now what was the point that you though I proved?? Oh yeah, the dot com statement. Too bad you did not know what the dotcom boom was actually about.

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound each and every time you do your "me boy" thing? What the heck is that?

Just a term of endearment.
I see you have hit the end of your ability to discus the economic subjects.[/QUOTE]

Dude, discussing economics with you...is like discussing advanced physics with the village idiot! You didn't even know what a school of economics WAS! So much for your "ability"!

 

[edthecynic]

Bill Clinton got reined in by Newt Gingrich and the GOP's Contract With America,

More like Clinton reined the GOP Congress since only changing Clinton with Bush and the same GOP Congress replaced surpluses with deficits as far as the eye can see!

The "surpluses" only occurred because of the Gingrich led Congress cutting spending...while the Dot Com Boom greatly increased revenues. At the end of the Clinton Presidency...the Dot Com Boom was OVER and so were the surpluses. Within weeks of Bush being sworn in we were officially in a recession.

The increased revenue was actually due to Clinton's tax increase on the rich which Bush ended as soon as he took over and the surpluses disappeared immediately, replaced by permanent deficits.